Ashok Kumar Lawaniya Vs State of U.P. and Another

As per office report, notice has been served on opposite party no. 2, however, none has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 to oppose the appeal.

¶11

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred by the appellant- Ashok Kumar Lawaniya with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 21.08.2025 passed by Learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act)/Additional Session Judge, Agra in Bail Application No. 4586/2025 (Raj Kumar Lawaniya & another Versus State of U.P. & others) in Complaint Case No. 182/2023 (Mukesh Chand Versus Karan & others) arising out of Case Crime No. 534/2022, Under Section 323, 328, 373, 376D, 504, 506, 342 I.P.C & 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act, Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Agra.

¶12

Learned counsel for appellant has submitted that absurd allegation in the FIR has been made against appellant. He submits that one of co-accused Raj Kumar Lawaniya lodged an FIR bearing Case Crime No.219 of 2022, under Sections 120B, 406 and 422 IPC, at Police Station Jagdishpura, District Agra against the present informant-Mukesh and his daughter / victim and husband of victim Karan. Specific allegations against victim, her husband Karan and Mukesh have been made by co-accused Raj Kumar Lawaniya that he was duped an amount of Rs.60,000/- by informant and other two persons. He

¶13

CRLA No. 8154 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

stated that all the accused persons met him on the pretext that they will solemnize the marriage of victim with Raj Kumar Lawaniya. Said amount was taken by them on the said pretext. It was also mentioned that when informant, his daughter / victim and husband of victim met with co-accused Raj Kumar Lawaniya, victim and her husband pretended themselves as brother and sister. An attempt by the victim and his father was made to secure arrest stay from this Court, but they failed to seek said relief. In the said case, anticipatory bail as well as regular bail of victim was rejected by learned Sessions Court. Bail of victim was granted by this Court and when victim was released on bail, she alongwith informant and his husband lodged the present FIR as a vendetta and made allegations that victim was sold to appellant who later on committed rape upon her. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the surrounding circumstances itself suggest that FIR has been lodged as a vendetta against him, therefore, the appellant is entitled for bail.

¶16

Learned AGA has submitted that facts of another FIR mentioned by appellant has no bearing upon this case. Both the cases will be tried independently and appellant cannot take umbrage of the said case. Victim has categorically alleged that she was ravished by appellant. Therefore, appellant is not entitled for bail.

¶17

I have considered the rival submissions so made and have gone through the entire record.

¶18

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the Court is of the opinion that the appellants have made out a case for bail.

¶19

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside.

¶20

Let the appellant- Ashok Kumar Lawaniya involved in Complaint Case No. 182/2023 (Mukesh Chand Versus Karan & others) arising out of Case Crime No. 534/2022, Under Section 323, 328, 373, 376D, 504, 506, 342 I.P.C & 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act, Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Agra , be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶21

(i) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶22

CRLA No. 8154 of 2025

¶23

3

¶24

(ii) The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶25

(iii) The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶26

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶27

(v) The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶28

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the concerned Court shall be at liberty to take appropriate coercive action for appearance of the accused or to cancel the bail granted.

¶29

(Anil Kumar-X,J.)

¶30

October 9, 2025 Mukesh

¶31

Digitally signed by :- MUKESH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ashok Kumar Lawaniya v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar Lawaniya v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases